The Do-It-Yourself (DIY) home security systems are essential devices in making ensuring that the homes, offices and business premises are safeguarded. The DIY systems enable the owners to be aware of the security status of their premises through mobile feeds and live alerts through a smart home integration system. Following the fact that every home has different security needs, the DIY systems come in varying forms to meet these varying needs. DIY for home security can be customized for self-monitoring from alert feeds and video live streams.

General properties of DIY system

Most DIY systems have Z-wave support which is essentially a mesh of network that enables the system to communicate from one appliance to another. The DIY systems have a mode of connecting third-party equipment such as Nest Thermostat or Philip lights that enhance monitoring. Through Z- wave support, DIY devices attain flexibility as they can be placed at any place since Z-wave support has an ability to communicate over long distances. The Z-wave support functions as the internet connection between the DIY devices and has a wider range while compared to Wi-Fi.

DIY systems are easy to install with many taking about an hour for fitting an area of 2000 square-foot home. The quality of the hardware and the software differs from one DIY home security system vendors to the other. The most quality devices offer a quick hardware/software interface and have customized facial recognition and sensor names. They also have instantaneous alerts and notifications.

Effective types of DIY home security systems.

Frontpoint one of the effective DIY system usually sophisticated but an easy self-installation system. The system is customized with a glass sensor, control panel, four access sensors. The Frontpoint system has a professional subscription fee for monitoring with monthly plans ranging from a minimum of $35 to a maximum of $50. It has features such as home automation, camera video tracking and storage, and mobile notifications.

Abode home security is a DIY system offers a free monitoring service after installation is made. It has a powerful app, its compatible with voice and third-party devices, easy pairing procedures and sturdy design. Since this version of DIY doesn’t have monthly subscriptions, the user is able to have access to all the features in the mobile app which include push notifications, system controls, and surveillance alerts.

Simplisafe is a DIY package which offers an option for the installer to build a customized home security system. It has a keypad and a hub where the installer can add more sensors and cameras. The system uses a plug and plays mechanism therefore there is usually no software used in pairing the devices neither an app is required. However, it needs a professional to do the installation. It also needs monthly subscriptions for the client to receive the alerts since it uses a cellular connection. The system doesn’t provide an option of receiving automatic app alerts like in the other internet-based systems.

Scout alarm is a DIY home security system that comes either in custom or pre-made sets. The system comes with one hub and supporting devices according to the installer specifications. This can include motion sensors and door panels. The self-monitoring allows access to the mobile app and alerts at a monthly subscription. The scout alarm also supports third-party devices to attain a more connected security system.

Pros and Cons of DIY Home Security Systems

Having made a brief description of DIY home security systems, it is important to draw some of the advantages and disadvantages that come with the installation of these systems.

PROS of DIY Home Security Systems

The DIY systems are relatively cheap especially in comparison with the former traditional security systems. Per security expert from Liquid Image co, the DIY requires low installation workforce like the traditional systems which maintains a low installation fee. The system also has minimal maintenance costs and the client is excepted from monthly fees that accompany alarm system upgrades. The installer also need not wait for the technician to get the installation done which saves on time.

The DIY systems are based on wireless connections. As earlier discussed, the systems are based on Z-wave support which enables internet connection of all the devices attached to the system. The client is, therefore, to keep a track of the home over a computer or even a smartphone app wherever he is under an internet connection. This makes the system to be portable according to the client’s specifications. Since the alarms and devices are wireless, the client can undertake upgrading and expansions in different locations of choice.

Alert notifications and online monitoring enable the client to keep check of their homes from different locations. Through the smart home, application features the user is able to also contact the relevant persons to address the security infringements quite easily unlike the traditional systems. The systems message alerts also keep the user aware of the security status if the home.

CONS of DIY Home Security Systems

As discussed earlier, DIY systems require monthly subscriptions to enable the user to access all the features in the monitoring applications or to have a message and notification alerts. This makes it expensive in the payment of monthly subscriptions. Where the user is not able to make the installation, there is a further professional installation cost on the part of the user.

Due to the inexperience of the user, a DIY system may be of little benefits to him when it is incorrectly installed. The user upon the wrong installation accesses limited security information through the system leading into underutilization of the system and also limited control of the risk.

DIY system user also bears the repair responsibility of the system upon loss of functionality. Unlike in professional installation where the user is given coverage upon the system dysfunction, in DIY the user takes the whole burden of maintaining the system and upgrading when it becomes necessary. DIY security systems lack well connection to emergency teams such as fire-brigades, medical personnel or security personnel in an event of a threat as it all depends on the users’ contacts. The user has to contact the emergency teams upon emergency which can at times difficult when the smartphone containing the emergency contacts has been held hostage thieves it has been destroyed in the event of fire break up.

A 3525 was first introduced in 2013 and then re-introduced in January 2014. According to its summary, the bill “provides for the labeling of food or food products that contain a genetically modified material or that are produced with a genetically modified material.”

According to GMO-Free New York, the bills have 51 co-sponsors in the assembly and 11 in the senate. The assembly bill could come up for a hearing in March.

2013

GMO Free NY Update: New York GMO Labeling Bill A.3525-A was given a hearing on July 30th, 2013. At the end of the hearing the committee Chair Jeffrey Dinowitz promised to bring the bill up for a vote in January 2014!.

GMO Free NY is a volunteer-run grassroots organization allied with the National Right to Know GMO Coalition of States. We’re here because we believe it’s time for full disclosure and transparency regarding the presence of genetically modified foods and ingredients in our food supply.

Our Mission is to inspire and empower New Yorkers to help us pass a bill to mandate the labeling of genetically engineered food or foods containing genetically engineered ingredients sold in New York by 2014!

On January 10, 2013, HB. 1196 was introduced to the Indiana House of Representatives to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. The bill is sponsored by Representatives Dan Forestal and Robin Shackleford and has been assigned to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

According to the bill summary, HB. 1196:

“Provides that, beginning July 1, 2014, any food that is offered for retail sale is misbranded if it is not disclosed that the food is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering. Provides that, beginning July 1, 2014, a food that is genetically engineered or a processed food may not state or imply that the food is natural. Establishes exceptions to the disclosure requirements and prohibition on stating a food is natural. Requires the state department of health (department) to administer and enforce the disclosure and labeling requirements. Allows the department to adopt rules. Establishes a Class A infraction for violations. Allows the department or a person to seek an injunction for a violation.”

Indiana Right to Know GMO educates the public about the effects of genetically engineered foods upon health and environment and supports legislation to label genetically engineered foods so that consumers may know what they are buying to feed themselves and their families.

H 7042 was introduced in January 2014 by Democratic Rep. Dennis Canario, and has five sponsors.

According to the text, in addition to requiring labeling of genetically-engineered foods, the bill also defines “natural” as follows: “Which has not been treated with preservatives, antibiotics, synthetic additives, artificial flavoring or artificial coloring; Which has not been processed in a manner that makes such food significantly less nutritive; and Which has not been genetically engineered.”

On January 29, the committee recommended the bill held for further study.

Similarly S 2226 was introduced in January 2014 and also held for study.

As a coalition of states, we need a movement of people to tell the Government that we have a right to know what is in our Foods. GMO Labeling is just a small step forward in making the future of our nation a healthier one. We need to be educated about what we are eating. Act now and tell your local legislator to stand for your rights.

Genetically modified crops have attracted criticism over the world. Especially in Europe and Denmark, where it now seems to be completely finish with GMO crops. Cultivation of GM crops has caused great debate. Now, the last of the food that cultivated GMOs in Denmark chose to drop cultivation.

Monsanto has been in the process of testing the possibilities of production of various GM crops in Denmark, but it is now ended, ABC News, in collaboration with the Center for Investigative Journalism in Denmark (Investigative Reporting Denmark) tell.

In Europe, Monsanto sells only GM maize in the three countries. GMO corn is less than one percent of the EU’s growing maize on land. Field trials are only started in three countries. We will not spend more money to convince people to plant them, says Brandon Mitchener as PR Officer for Monsanto in Europe.

GMO upoplært across Europe

The decision was made behind closed doors, and the company saw no reason to tell about it. Even if it means that all food businesses has now abandoned GM crops in Denmark – and most of Europe.

It is not surprising when you know chemical company BASF stopped their biotech trials in Europe in 2012 and agro company Syngeta moved their studies several years earlier. This will have an effect on the international spread of GM crops globally, says Klaus Sall has studied GM industry for several years and has just released a progress report on the development of GM crops in the EU.

From the Danish authorities confirm you that it’s over with GM crops in Denmark.

At the moment there is no GM crop trials in Denmark registered with Nature Business Authority, says Kristine Riskær who is Head of Seeds and Plants at NaturErhversstyrelsen, in cooperation with the EPA’s authority in connection with trials of GM crops in Denmark.

She notes, however, that in principle can get request for new field trials in the future.

Too much complaining throughout Europe

The cultivation of GM crops in Denmark has so far been on a trial basis. Experiments which should lead to a genuine production of, for example, genetically modified maize among other Danish fields.

But the last field trials, the company behind Monsanto, now stopped. Partly because of consumer resistance to GM food and partly by poor test results.

Will only work where there is a happy consumers

The principle want Monsanto to sell biotech seeds in countries where there is widespread support for them among consumers and politicians, while there must be a working, research-based regulated system. Conditions which are only present in a few countries in Europe today, says Brandon Mitchener.

He explains further that Monsanto stopped most field trials, including in Denmark, as a result of a strategic decision in 2011 to focus the company’s activities in Europe on conventional crops.

Danish agricultural capsized adventure

Talk about GM crops in Danish farmland were given extra momentum in 2009, when then-Agriculture and Food Minister Eva Kjer Hansen presented Monsanto’s first three attempts in the production of GM crops in Denmark.

She told then that in three years time, Denmark would be ready to accept genetically modified crops, and many farmers would grow them. She even invited the Danish press corps on farm visits in Tystofte by Skaelskoer to talk about Danish agricultural next adventure.

Two years later expanded Monsanto their field trials for another year by a total of five different crops. The results of the studies have never been published, therefore the Center for Investigative Journalism in Denmark and Transparency parliament sought access .

Bad GM maize stopped future

The procedure is that the authorities shall test new crops being tested for two years before they may be approved for sale and cultivation in Denmark. It turns out that field trials failed in the second year. In February 2011, the authorities refused one of GM crops from Monsanto on the basis of field experiments.

Specifically, it was about GM maize, which should be resistant to the herbicide Round-Up, but since GM maize only developed 97 percent compared to conventional maize, Monsanto should not expect to get yes for cultivation in Denmark.

Devastating that companies can stop bad results

Then canceled Monsanto other field trials before they were finished. And therefore avoided further discussion of these trials. Centre for Investigative Journalism has tried to gain access to the study results – without success.

It is devastating to the scientific method when firms may decide that only positive results are published. This is a good example of the need for a requirement that companies must accept free access to their GMO seeds for scientific studies when they are approved for import into the EU, says Klaus Sall.

Monsanto says the Center for Investigative Journalism (Investigative Reporting Denmark) in Denmark that some of the results from field experiments will be published later this year.

HB 1 was introduced was introduced in August 2013, and referred to committee in October 2013. You can read that bill text here and track its status here.

SB 558 was introduced in December 2013 by Senator Jeremy Ring. According to the bill text, foods made with genetically engineered ingredients “must include a clear and conspicuous statement with the words ‘contains genetically engineered ingredients,’ followed by the name of the genetically engineered ingredient or ingredients, on the front or back of the package.”

On March 1, 2013, HB 1233 was introduced to the Florida House of Representatives to require mandatory labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods and raw agricultural commodities. The bill is sponsored by Representatives Mark S. Pafford and Michele Vasilinda.

On March 2, 2013, a companion bill, S.1728 was introduced in the Florida Senate by Senator Maria Lorts Sachs.

In addition, efforts are also currently underway by state labeling advocates to introduce a ballot initiative for the 2014 election.

GMO Free Florida is a grassroots organization that educates & organizes to bring awareness on the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms in our food and environment. Our goal is to get mandatory labeling, and/or restrictions of GMOs in Florida and eventually ban the release of all GMO’s into the environment.

Those advocating for improvements to our broken food system have, of late, had little to crow about. However, in recent years, a growing movement to label foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has begun showing real promise. While the food industry continues to make unsubstantiated and deceptive claims that GMO labels would be confusing or increase food costs, polls show that more than 90 percent of Americans favor GMO labeling. And the states are listening. At least 20 states have proposed legislation requiring that genetically engineered foods be labeled.

Last year Connecticut overcame industry lobbying and became the first state in the nation to enact such a law, and on Jan. 9, Maine’s governor signed that state’s GMO-labeling bill into law. Unfortunately, after some legislative tussling, both measures have significant so-called trigger clauses that require other states to enact similar policies before the laws can take effect.

Meanwhile, high-profile, close-margin voter-initiative losses in California in 2012 and Washington state last year raised much awareness and emboldened similar efforts to move propositions forward in Oregon and Colorado this year. Legislatures in several states — including Vermont, New Hampshire and New York — are also currently weighing GMO labeling bills.

This momentum is becoming a very expensive headache for the biotechnology and processed-food industries. Opposing the two ballot initiatives in California and Washington cost corporations more than $67 million. Never mind how in the Washington battle, food companies tried to illegally laundertheir campaign donations through their lobbying group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and got caught in the act. (The case has yet to go to trial, but the GMA has filed a countersuit claiming the law is invalid.)

Now that noble organization, which represents such food-industry giants as PepsiCo and Kraft, has a new trick up its sleeve: a so-called federal solution. Admittedly, the food industry ideally should not have to follow 50 states’ different laws dictating how products should be labeled. But the GMA’s way out of this conundrum is to call for a voluntary scheme that would at the same time wipe out the ability of states to require labeling — a legal concept known as pre-emption. In other words, the industry’s federal solution would make it illegal for states to pass laws requiring GMO labeling, and at the national level, there will still be no mandatory law.

More states must flex their political muscle to remind federal leaders that Americans want transparency about the food they eat.

The GMA’s complete scheme to stop the progress of labeling laws in the states (and the hole in their pockets) was recently revealed in an internal document made public by Politico. Included on the lobbyists’ audacious wish list for Congress and the Food and Drug Administration was a self-certifying “mandatory premarket notification” scheme, in which companies would drop a note to the FDA informing it of any new GMO products to be released for public consumption; if the FDA does not object within 90 days, then food companies could claim the product is government approved. This is similar to Facebook’s claim that users have agreed to its data-collection policy simply by signing up. The arrangement is also similar to the current “generally recognized as safe” self-certification process, in which the FDA allows food makers to claim that new food additives are safe, without government confirmation — an industry-friendly system that has been sharplycriticized.

If the GMA were to get its way, not only would food companies be able to make claims about the “absence of bioengineered ingredients” in its products (something that companies are already doing through third-party certifiers such as the Non-GMO Project), but also the FDA would develop corporate-friendly regulations on GMO-free claims that would allow a company to call products from cows fed genetically modified grains GMO-free.

Also on the industry’s shopping list: an FDA-developed definition for the “natural” label on foods. This issue has become so contentious that it has already led to numerous legal battles. Recently the FDA explicitly declined a court request to decide if food companies can use the natural label on products containing GMOs. (Apparently it is not an agency priority.) In an effort to curtail further litigation, lobbyists want the FDA to allow the industry to engage in this deception. But how can a technology novel enough to get patent protection also be natural?

Details aside, the true agenda behind this ambitious proposal is to put an end to the copious amounts of negative publicity that food makers have been enduring as Americans increasingly wake up to what they are eating. (One of the lobbyists’ ideas was that GMOs be renamed “bioengineered foods,” presumably because that phrase polls better among shoppers.) Especially harmful to Big Food’s reputation has been the revelation that many beloved organic- and natural-food brands are, in fact, owned by massive food conglomerates that are funding anti-GMO-labeling campaigns. For example, General Mills took a lot of heat when consumers of its organic Cascadian Farms brand realized the parent company was funding the opposition during the California initiative. Similarly, Coca-Cola is the target of a consumer boycott of the company’s healthier brands such as Honest Tea and Odwalla over its continued opposition to GMO labeling.

While a federal solution may be necessary, the GMA proposal is a far cry from what consumers are demanding and only shows the food industry’s desperation. If the industry gets its way, shoppers will remain in the dark about which foods contain GMOs. Meanwhile, the state-level policy efforts should continue to move forward. More states must flex their political muscle to remind federal leaders that Americans want transparency about the food they eat. Now that the junk-food lobby’s true agenda has been revealed, federal representatives are on notice: Your constituents will be holding you accountable to ensure that this democracy-killing power grab does not come to fruition.

Michele Simon is a public health lawyer, president of Eat Drink Politics, and author of “Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back.”

GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals created through the gene splicing techniques of biotechnology (also called genetic engineering or transgenic). This experimental technology merges DNA from different species, creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite two decades of biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

The following crops are being genetically engineered for human consumption: corn, soybeans, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, and small amounts of zucchini and yellow squash. An estimated that GMOs are in 70 to 75% of the processed food in America.

Are GMOs labeled?

Unfortunately, even though polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans want to know if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs, the biotech lobby has succeeded in keeping this information from the public.

In California over 6 million voters (48.6%) voted in favor of Prop 37, a ballot initiative to mandate the labelling of GMOS, despite $46.5 million spent to defeat it.

A 2010, Thomson Reuters PULSE™ Healthcare Survey, found that 93% of Americans believe that genetically engineered foods should be labeled.

GMO labelling has broad bipartisan support, according to a 2011 poll, 89% of Republicans, 90% of Independents and 93% of Democrats favor GMO labelling in the U.S.

Are GMOs safe?

A growing body of scientific, medical, and anecdotal evidence connects GMOs with potential health problems, serious environmental damage, and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights. Many developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe.

Already 64 countries around the world, including Russia, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, GMOs are either labeled or even banned.

In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Currently, there are no government mandated controlled studies demonstrating the short term or long term safety of GMOs.

Under U.S. law, it’s difficult to conduct independent studies of GMOs because the seeds are patented and therefore unavailable for testing. Due to corporate influence, GMOs are essentially unregulated in America, with little federal oversight of their safety for human health or the environment.

What are the health risks associated with GMOs?

During the original approval process for GMOs, the FDA’s own scientists agreed that genetic engineering created new risks, including the possible introduction of new toxins and allergens. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine urges physicians to advise all patients to avoid GMOS and indicates that several animal studies indicate serious health risks.

What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?

Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced in 1996. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

How do GMOs affect farmers?

Using strict patent law corporations that produce GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. This poses a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.

HB 2143 was introduced in January 2014 by Representative Cary Condotta, and would require the following labeling on salmon: “Private sector cultured aquatic salmon or salmon products as farm-raised salmon; Commercially caught salmon or salmon products as commercially caught salmon; or Genetically engineered salmon or salmon products as being genetically engineered.”

You can read the bill here and track its status here.

2013

Washington state has an initiative filed for the November 5th, 2013 ballot, but this measure could also be adopted by the state legislature prior to the election.

On January 4, 2013, advocates for open and transparent food labeling submitted more than 340,000 signatures to file Initiative 522, “The People’s Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” to qualify for the November ballot. The

If passed, I-522 “would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.”

On January 17, 2013, Senate Bill 5073 was introduced to the Washington Senate by Senators Chase, Kline, Keiser, Rolfes, and Hasegawa.

In Washington, I-522 was filed as an initiative to the Legislature, which means it would first go to the Legislature for possible adoption. Currently hearings are taking place in the Senate and the House to determine if state legislators will pass the bill as drafted, make amendments to the bill, or the initiative will go to a vote by citizens on November 5th, 2013.

If you are looking to buy the ultimate pressure cooker that will replace other cooking appliances, then you are reading the right content. We have created this comparison post for those of you who are in search of versatility. Numerous brands are bombarding the market with their multipurpose cooking appliances. However, two such machines that have caught the attention of the consumer in recent times are Power Pressure Cooker XL (PPC XL) and various models from Instant Pot (IP).

Each of these models has their strengths and weaknesses, and something you prefer doesn’t mean that it is a top priority for all others as well. But we do guarantee you that each of the models that we are considering in this article has something to offer that you will love. So, let’s begin!

Overall Comparison: Instant Pot vs. Power Pressure Cooker XL

Both the brands have their own positives attributes. For example, they both come with various pre-set programs that you can use to prepare different meals as per your requirements. Power XL emphasizes on 70% faster cooking as compared to the traditional cooking techniques while Instant Pot underlines on utility and convenience.

All products from IP don’t go over 8 quarts whereas, Power Pressure Cooker XL goes up to 10 Quarts. Instant Pot focuses on offering functionalities that the user can reprogram according to the needs and requirements while PPC XL stays focused on presets. Both the brands can’t do everything, but they do offer plenty of value for the money that you spend for them.

If you prefer preset programs, then you should opt for Power XL and if you like to set your own presets the go for IP cookers. Furthermore, Instant Pot comes with a Yogurt Maker while Power Pressure cooker XL comes in 10-Quarts capacity which none of the Instant Pot models have to offer.

If the price is a deciding factor, then XL takes the lead again over Instant Pot because it is a lot cheaper than most of the models of Instant Pot excluding the Lux Series which has the same price as Power Pressure Cooker XL. Therefore, overall PPC XL has the edge over IP only when we talk about price and capacity. Regarding technological advancement, safety and versatility IP will always come out on top.

Instant Pot Lux Series vs. Power Pressure Cooker XL

The significant advantage Instant Pot Lux Series has over PPC XL is its price. Lux Series pressure cookers come with a similar price tag as that of Power Pressure Cooker XL, and it comes with almost all the functions that its competitor has in it.

On the other hand, Power Pressure Cooker XL offers greater capacity at 10 Quarts which can cook a full turkey, as compared to the Lux Series. However, PPC XL has lesser manual options or programs for the users as compared to Lux Series.

It might not matter for some user, but others may like to change a few options around. Lux Series is equipped with a feature that allows the cooking process to be delayed for up to 24 hours which is not available in Power Pressure Cooker XL. Preset programs are a preference for some of the users because if you have to set a program manually, then you won’t need a multipurpose pressure cooker.

However, manual setting is for those people who know what they are cooking and how much time does the dish need to prepare adequately. Instant Pot Lux Series turns out to be the winner because you might not be able to go for higher capacity Lux Series but it does come with some handy features with manually preset cooking programs at an affordable price.

Instant Pot Duo Series vs. Power Pressure Cooker XL

The Instant Pot Duo Series takes lead over Power XL due to its “Yogurt Maker” feature. You can make yogurt with a simple setting in your Instant Port Duo Series pressure cooker but not with Power Pressure Cooker XL.

The only advantage of Power XL over Duo Series is that it comes cheap and offers a higher capacity of 10-Quarts as compared to Duo Series. The Duo Series comes with various manual presets and its construction is based on safety as well.

The XL lags behind Duo Series concerning functions because it lacks the safety features that Instant Pot provides to its consumers. The simplest of the safety features of this type of appliance involves an auto steam release feature that is not present in the XL.

Power XL only has one feature that is not there in the Duo Series, and that is the canning system, but NCHFP and FDA don’t recommend pressure canning your food. Furthermore, the quality of the cooking pot is a significant comparison factor. The cooking pot of the Duo Series is made of stainless steel while that of the XL is non-stick coating pot that is more prone to sticking or burning food.

Apart from price tag and capacity, there is no other reason to choose Power XL over Duo Series or if you intend to use it for canning. Therefore, Duo Series turns out to be the winner because it provides you with cooking safety, a stainless steel cooking pot and of course you can manually set your cooking programs as well.

Instant Pot Smart Series vs. Power Pressure Cooker XL

Instant Pot Smart has everything which makes it a next-generation pressure cooker. Regarding features, it is way ahead of the competing brands in the market. You can connect this cooker with your phone and control it remotely to delay the cooking times as per your requirements.

The Power XL only has an advantage when it comes to price or the capacity. Otherwise, Instant Smart Pot is miles ahead of it. As claimed by Instant Pot website, the Smart Series is million-in-1 multi-purpose pressure cooker, and you can preset almost anything you want into it. It is not available in Power XL.

The Smart Series also has a stainless steel cooking pot which is not there in the XL, and it is also equipped with additional safety measures such as an auto steam release.

If you want pressure canning, then XL will provide you with that feature, but Instant Pot continues to focus on regulation from FDA and doesn’t include in its Smart Series as well. The only disadvantage that the Smart Series has as compared to the XL is it is very expensive, but it does allow you to save numerous cooking program settings too.

The winner of this roundup turns out to be Smart Pot Series because it comes with a remote feature to delay the cooking time whenever you need it. You can also pre-set many programs, and it won’t burn or stick the food in its stainless steel pot as well.

Instant Pot Duo Plus Series Vs. Power Pressure Cooker XL

The Instant Pot Duo Plus Series has all the features of Duo Series. However, it does come with a ‘sterilize’ setting in addition to ‘egg’ and ‘cake’ programs in the Duo Series. However, it is slightly more expensive as compared to the Duo series.

It also features a Yogurt Maker that is not there in Power XL. The only advantage of Power XL over Instant Pot Duo Plus Series is the price factor and 10-Quarts capacity. Apart from the manual settings, the Power XL lags in foam and functions as well.

The XL doesn’t come with an auto steam release which is a standard for most multi cookers. Furthermore, just like the Duo Series, the Duo Plus also doesn’t come with canning system because FDA doesn’t recommend it, but Power XL has it. In addition to that, the cooking pot of the Duo Plus Series is also made of stainless steel whereas; the XL comes with a non-stick coating pot.

Apart from capacity and price tag, the Power XL doesn’t have any other advantage over Instant Pot Duo Plus Series. Therefore, the Instant Pot Duo Plus Series turns out to be the winner because it provides you with a stainless steel cooking pot, safe cooking, and you can set your cooking controls as well.

Conclusion

Both Power XL and all the models of Instant Pot have their positives and negatives. When we talk about price and capacity Power XL takes the lead over Instant Pot. However, besides that, there is nothing much to discuss. Instant Pot, on the other hand, enables you to take control of whatever you are cooking for your family.

It is expensive as compared to Power Pressure Cooker XL but it does offer plenty of versatility, quality, and safety. If you are willing to invest more and want more capacity, then go for PPC XL. However, if you genuinely want to enjoy the benefit of multi-purpose cooking, then bring any model of Instant Pot to your kitchen.